THE Grey Rider Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1872.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1344, 19 November 1872, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. PUBLISHED DAILY. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1872.

One of tho most interesting interviews between representatives aud constituents since the close of the last session of Parliament .has been the meeting at which Messrs Hunter and Pearce addressed the electors of Wellington. It was interesting by reason of the frank, manly, aud mannerly explanation which each of these members gave as to the policy pursued by themselves and by others who voted either with or against them ; but to readers who are nonresident in Wellington, perhaps the most interesting part of the proceedings at the meeting was a speech which was delivered, not by Mr Hunter or by Mr Pearce, but by an intruder upon the scene, Mr Travors. Mr Travers has, since Mr Brogden's visit to the Colony, or during greater part cf the period, been ,that gentleman's legal adviser, and he made his appearance on the platform on this occasion less as a Wellington elector than as a special pleader on Mr Brogden's behalf, and in that capacity he communicated a large amount of information which, though in many particulars disputed and contradicted by the Government organs, has at least the merit of novelty. From Mr Travers we learn, for instance, that "Mr Brogden left tho country in anything but a mood of satisfaction," and that " thelast words that passed between him and Mr Vogtl wore anything but words of friendship." Mr Travers is not very specific as to all tho causes of this change in the relations between tho Minister and ,the contractor, but he mentions one circumstance which was certainly calculated to sour the temper of the latter, and that is the possibility of his firm sustaining a loss of some L60,0U0 through the contract by which they had undertaken to procure the necessary borie-and-sinew for the construction of the railways in the shape of immigrants to be first employed on the public works and to ultimately settle in such parts of the country as they might themselves select. According to the explanation of Mr Traver3 on this subject, the Government were anxious that Mr Brogden should undertake the scheme because they knew that the firm had a large number of people employed on their works in England, and that they had opportunities of procuring Emigrants which the Government had not, but Mr Brogden saw that the terms offered by the Government were likely to lead him into a very serious loss. He told them he could not accept the terms, but that he would refer the matter to. the firm in England, and the result was that after communicetion with the Agent-General the firm entered into a contract which involved the sending out to the Colony of a number of people amounting altogether to 6000 statute adults, upon these terms : The Government were to pay their passages out to this country, and Brogden's firm was to give the Government a promissory note for the sum of £10 for every immigrant brought to the Colony, the firm taking from every immigrant a promissory not© for ,£ls or £16; but the firm had to pay all the expenses of collecting the immigrants in England, and a variety of charges connected with their maintenance. So that tho difference between the LlO they paid to the Governmeut, and the Ll6 they obtained from the emigrants was not all profit; there were deductions which reduced the amount to about.£2, they paying tho whole amount to the Government, and recovering, if they could, from tho immigrant. These immigrants were subject to a J ' heavier charge than those brought by the /•Government. They had to pay £15, whereas those brought out by the Government had only to pay iJIO. When Mr Brogden learnt what was going on with regard to the emigration scheme ho was as much taken aback, says Mr Travera, as any man could be' T3y the terms of the contract he found that every immigrant came obt saddled with a debt which) if he faa fully employed at the highest wages the country ever gave, 'without allowing for sickness, without t Uowing for the ordinary expenses which

a saving man would incur, he could not clear off by the practice of the utmost economy. Mr Brogden immediately brought under the notice of the Government the unfairness of the contract, and applied to them to relieve him from its terms, and to release the immigrants from the burden imposed upon them. And now comes rather an interesting and highly sug-, gestive part of Mr Travers too frank" explanation of the course subsequently , pursued by Mr Brogden. The matter, he says, was immediately brought under the notice of the Stafford Government when they took offico, and Mr Stafford said, " We cannot relieve "you of the past engagements under which immigrants have been introduced, because it disturbs the whole arrangements of tho Government, but we will not call upon you to do it for the future." Then Mr Vogel's Government came into office, and Mr Brogdeu appealed to them, receiving, within the last few days, an answer that the Government would not relieve the firm from the engagement " They left Mr Brogden to ii.troduce the immigrants under a system which would entail an "enormous loss, that could not be less than £60,000." Such is the statement made by Mr Travers, and, though we do not ventnro to say that there was any connection between these facts, and certain circumstances recently recorded in these columns, there does now appear some very substantial reason for others than Mr Brogden's private secretary seeking to retain the Stafford Ministry in office. Whether Mr Travers's narrative of the conditions of the contract be correct or not — and we obsez*ve that by one of our contemporaries it is contradicted — it is not disputed that the Messrs Brogden are likely to be heavy losers by being bound to fulfil it, and the contrast between the conduct of the two Ministries certainly suggests that there might possibly have been a desire on the part of Mr Brogden himself to favor the continuance in office of that party which promised to consider his interests in preference to those of the Colony.

With regard also to the railway contracts Mr Traver3 drew a dark picture of Mr Brogden's prospects of profit, and rather readily blamed -Mr Yogel for a matter the responsibility of which roust rest chiefly with Mr Brogden himself. Mr Brogden, said Mr Travers, came out under the full belief that the major contract was to be accepted, for in the presence of himself and several other gentlemen ho told Mr Yogel point blank that he would not have come out to New Zealand unless he thought the larger contract would be accepted. Mr Brogden told Mr Yogel on many occasions that he had been brought here under false pretences. When the matter came before the House the House saw that Mr Brogdon had not been treated fairly, and it was in consequence of that belief that it was determined to give him contracts to the extent of a million. He was not going to say whether the contracts were prudent or imprudent. There they were, and his impression was that Mr Brogden was not going to make what was called a " pot," out of them. Noting these few sentences, the Wellington Imlependdent thus comments upon them :— Whatever ideas Mr Brogden may have held as to the probability of the larger contract being agreed to by the Legislature, it cannot be doubted it was well known by him that this contract was a provisional one — that it was outside tho authority of the law, and that the iSo. 2 contract was an alternative upon which Mr Brogdeu could fall back. Clearly he knew very well that he might only obtain Nb. 2 contract for ,£500,000 of work, and he was evidently content to run the bare chance of getting the larger concession. We believe that No. I contract was the best for the Colony, but it is sufficient that the Assembly refused to sanction it, and that Mr Brogden would simply have got rip less nor more than lie was entitled to had No. 2 contract been allowed to remain in force. But the Legislature at tho desire of the Government enlarged the scope of that contract, and gave Mr Brogden's Grm concessions which most people consider liberal and many others think to be unfair. Mr Brogden has no grounds for the "disgust" which Mr Travers imputes to him. He came out here tv make money only, aud if he has not been able to make such profitable bargains as he expected, it is a fair infer, ence that the interests of the Colony have been jealously protected, and that the contracts have not been accepted by the Government without securing the Colony against undue expenditure.